Plaintiff,
Melvin Wilson, filed his Complaint (Filing No. 1) on
June 6, 2017, and was subsequently granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Filing No. 9). The court now
conducts an initial review of Wilson's Complaint and to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A.

I.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Wilson
is confined at the Douglas County Corrections Center
(“DCCC”). He claims to have been severely beaten
on January 8, 2013, by six corrections officers. Wilson also
claims to suffer from PTSD as a result of the incident and
claims he has not received proper medical treatment. He
further claims to be a victim of continuing harassment by
corrections officers.

II.
LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The
court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis
complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an
officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court must dismiss a
complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or
malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).

Pro se
plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to
“nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

“The
essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair
notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a
general indication of the type of litigation
involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A.,760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Hopkins v. Saunders,199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.
1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be
liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a
lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian,
760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).

Liberally
construing Wilson's complaint, he is suing Defendants
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under that
section, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights
protected by the United States Constitution or created by
federal statute and also must show that the alleged
deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under
color of state law. West v. Atkins,487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988); Buckley v. Barlow,997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th
Cir. 1993).

III.
DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

As an
initial matter, the court notes that Douglas County
Corrections Center is not a proper Defendant. See Dan v.
Douglas Cty. Dep't of Corr., No. 8:06CV714, 2009 WL
483837, at *4 (D. Neb. Feb. 25, 2009) (the Department of
Corrections and other units within the DCCC and Douglas
County lack the legal capacity to sue or be sued in their own
names). The County would be a proper Defendant,
[1] but
it may only be liable under section 1983 if a
“policy” or “custom” of the county
caused a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional
rights. Doe By and Through Doe v. Washington County,150 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Monell v.
Department of Soc. Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). An
“official policy” involves a deliberate choice to
follow a course of action made from among various
alternatives by an official who has the final authority to
establish governmental policy. Jane Doe A By and Through
Jane Doe B v. Special School Dist. of St. Louis County,901 F.2d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Pembaur v. City
of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986)). To establish
the existence of a governmental “custom, ” a
plaintiff must prove:

1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent
pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental
entity's employees;

2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such
conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking
officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct;
and

3) That plaintiff was injured by acts pursuant to the
governmental entity's custom, i.e., that the custom was
the moving force ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.